Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0CxoG.25F@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <CzzuEu.F48@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01LqA.I9q@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D03pCM.3sy@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:43:28 GMT
Lines: 144
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97217 comp.ai.philosophy:23188 sci.philosophy.meta:15318

In article <D03pCM.3sy@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <D01LqA.I9q@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <CzzuEu.F48@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>.......
>>>This particular evidence was picked by Turing, so as to isolate ourselves
>>>from human biases. Otherwise, you would be suggesting that classifying
>>>someone as 'conscious' depends on what he/she looks like, whetehr he/she
>>>has acceptable body laqnguage etc.  This brings out in force a mutlitude of
>>>cultural biases (if someone is black, can he/she be really conscious? Or
>>>makes totally inappropriate gestures and body sounds? How about severely
>>>deformed humans?). 
>>
>>Have I ever suggested that such criteria be used?  BTW, this is the
>>kind of think I have in mind by saying the TT is fiercely defended.
>>It looks like you might be trying to tie me to racism and other nasty
>>prejudices.  Perhaps that's not your intention, but if it's not I wish
>>you'd make that clear.
>>
>It is of no interest to me what view you hold on the subject of race, etc.
>I do not see how such views would be relevant to this discussion which should
>be based on generally obseravble facts and not emotions about them.

So why did you bring that stuff in at all.  I never suggested
any such criteria.

>What I was trying to illustrate is that cultural biases do influence people's
>opinions and hence we should attempt to use criteria which have clear 
>relevance. "looks" for instance should not be a meaningful factor in our
>judgement if someone (or something) is intelligent. This is the spirit in
>which Turing suggested his test.

True.

>>My usual example of a possibility is two programs that both generate
>>TT-passing behavior but differ internally so that e.g. one generates
>>consciousness while the other doesn't, or, say, one conducts an
>>internal dialogue while the other doesn't.
>>
>Since we do not know how to judge presence of consciousnes except by giving
>a TT, the above is meaningless. 

I disagree, but I'm not sure there's any ppint in discussing it
further.

>>How do you know it can't be established from outside?  We may never
>>know for sure, but there are all kinds of things we can't know for
>>sure.  That doesn't stop us from drawing conclusions that we regard
>>as reliable in practice.
>>
>As reliable practice we judge "intelligence" etc., of others on basis of 
>a sort of TT.

And why should that be the best we can ever do?  BTW, so far
as "a sort of TT" is concerned, I may well agree with you.
"A sort of TT" might potentially include everything observable.

But the ordinary, tty-style TT (or indeed any TT that involves
dialogue in English, Chinese, etc) probably won't help us when it
comes to animals.  Right now animal consciousness and rights are much
more pressing questions than AI consciousness and rights.

>>Rather than trying to make out that I'm evil, why don't you
>>say what it is that you think is important in the teletype
>>TT?
>>
>Again you seem to interpret my statements as a personal attack on you.

No, not as a personal attack.  Rather as rhetoric that suggests that
criteria other than TT criteria are suspect.

>This is puzzling. I have number of times said that what is important in 
>teletype TT is that it is relatively bias-free way of judging, which we also
>rutinely use with other people. I am sure you do it too, and I was trying to 
>make you aware of this.

But there are other non-TT criteria than the ones you suggested.

>>>>It seems to me that at present we on our strongest ground when dealing
>>>>with entities that are most similar to us: animals, especially
>>>>mammals, and better yet primates.  This is a different approach
>>>
>>>Then dolphins have no chance, they shouldn't even apply, right?
>>
>>Why are you taking such an extreme view of what I said?
>>
>Just above you refer to criterion of similarity and basically say that 
>"the more similar they are, so more sure I'd be", dont't you? Read again your
>own statements. 

I think we are on firmest ground when we're dealing with nervous
systems and behavioral capabilities most like our own.  For some
reason, you've decided to pick some suspect aspects of similarity
and reply as if that's what I meant.

>Even though in another place you have conceded that "looks"
>should not count! So how should I interpret the above?

Well, you might consider whether there are similarities other than
looks.

>>We know, though perhaps not absolutely and for sure because of the
>>other-minds problem, that humans are conscious; and we have good
>>reasons to suppose that consciousness is realized in the brain.  
>>And we may be finding out what some of the relevant features of the
>>brain and nervous system are.  It's not unreasonable to suppose 
>>that animals that are similar physically may also be similar mentally.
>>(Behavioral evidence can also be considered, of course.)
>>
>Since we know that mind resides in brain, only similarity of brain structure
>can count.

For being conscious, yes; but for our being able to tell other
similarities may also help.

>Why having four limbs or being a mammal should count?

Mammal because the nervous system will be more similar to ours and
the behavioral capabilities may make it easier to see that
consciousness is present.  I doubt that 4 limbs makes much
difference.

>>>Fine. However, as far as I can see, your reluctance to throw the towel in is
>>>based on emotional grounds, and not any empirical evidence. 
>>
>>Throw in the towel and admit what?  That we already know the TT
>>is sufficient?  Why should I admit something that's not the case.
>>
>Admit that if something (someone) shows an "intelligent" behavior, we are in 
>no position to deny it this label.

Ok, I agree with that.

>Are you suggesting that one day we may have a better method of deciding if
>soemthing is intelligent tha TT/behavior, right? In other words, no matter 
>what a person does, how she/he behaves, we will test him/her using these
>new criteria and pass a judgment, perhaps give out certificates, deny some
>privileges etc?

I will depend on the criteria whether any TT-passing humans might
fail.  But such failure can happen only if some humans are not
conscious (which seems unlikely) or the criteria are wrong.

-- jd
